I read Dele’s article with great amusement; while some that did justice to the after commentary thought it fit to go after the messenger, it was obvious Dele struck a chord. Whereas, some will prefer to debunk what he said, on the other hand anecdotal evidence suggests he was right. He simply wrote what quite a few men or women out there had in mind. Okay, now lie. Tell me you have never thought why that fine bobo ended up with that “marginal” babe. Tell me you have never felt that drop dead gorgeous woman couldn’t end up with a short bald man she showed off to you folks at church last week.
Don’t get me wrong, Dele’s thesis or hypothesis had its shortcomings but his observation could hardly be faulted. It is my intention to give his hypothesis a solid foundation. Currently his detractors have gone after his tower of cards built on sands. I am supplying science as the rock solid foundation for his observation. I am supplying age long scientific logic as a basis for his observable human behavior. Yes, evolution can explain why rich, handsome bobos marry marginal to next to plain women. It can also explain why older near expiry date drop dead gorgeous rich women (I know I will get in trouble for that) marry short bald men that can hardly make ends meet.
First we shall examine the weakness of Dele’s hypothesis. First he failed, when he made it appear to be a fine boy marry ugly woman affair. No it is not. The converse is actually true. Most women, even when not pressed to marry have said and confirmed they’d rather marry okay or ugly looking men than go with rich, handsome and famous. Statistics suggests also, that it is not just the reality it is the logical thing to do. Laws of magnetism tells us that unlike poles do attract; and if marriage is the ultimate fatal attraction then it will mean that unlike looking couples will have longer lasting and happier relationship than the common Hollywood set to fail picture perfect marriage that is less than perfect.
In addition to the above fallacy, Dele failed woefully when he made it to be an Ugly vs. Beautiful affair. It is already a well established fact that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What makes Janet Jackson attractive to Jermaine Dupri could be an exact turn off to Usher (who just snagged himself another older matured woman like Jermaine). It has nothing to do with the discrete beauty-ugly quantum. Rather, the beauty scale is a continuous spectrum. But to make this kind of polarizing argument without a clear distinction is nearly impossible. The convenient of course was what Dele had done i.e. by convincing his readers that every single human being can be put into a rubber stamped Beautiful vs. Ugly camp. It is not the reality; reality is that 90% are normal, 5% are head turning gorgeous, and 5% are just plain not worth the trouble. Within the 90% percent normal however, we have the marginal outliers on both ends, and there lies that perfect guinea pigs for this discussion. The outliers
Hence, talking about outliers it is not hard to see the marital intersection between the upper echelon of the 90% and the lower echelon of that 90%. In fact, it can be shown that the 5% that are head turning actually end up with the bottom 20-25% of the total human population in terms of level of attractiveness. Do not ask me for hard data, Sabella is currently crunching the numbers at Howard University where he is working on his thesis on this subject matter.
Now to the meat of this discussion- what can evolution teach us concerning the science or art of copulating for “eternity” as the institution of marriage is purported to be? Very simple: it is already well known that on the evolutionary ladder, he who sits on top basically runs the show. They get what they like, do what they want but the compensatory law of nature will eventually take its toll. Whatever goes up must come down. Simply put, on top of the evolutionary ladder sits the rich, strong man with good genes. A near co-equal if not superior is the beautiful woman. The beautiful women like the rich man get what she wants. She never lacked or lacks anything. From birth she was probably treated with deference by her parents who subconsciously gave her what she wanted and put less hassle on her. Her parents will deny this, but sociological findings suggests otherwise. For example it has been found that in the black community lighter skinned children (an equivalent of beauty in our colo-mentalized minds) do get better treatment than their darker skinned siblings.
Hence, will it not make sense that having gotten little or next to no training on affairs of pleasing a man (to hell with the feminists) she will be deficient in this department? Of course, going through a series of boy and man friends who will splurge on her in a minute notice and be at her beck and call will further exacerbate an already ugly situation. Fast forward a decade later when mother nature starts calling and maternal instinct to permanently be hitched need be satisfied, and you will see her former junkies either ineligible by virtue of making the kind of moves Dele testifies to or are plain no where to be found. Now that is evolutionary price to be paid. Of course, the result of this treatise is that she settles for an uglier lower earning man as a final choice before her latent heat dissipates. Since Dele made a good case for why handsome men hitch ugly women, I shall let his thesis stand. This is just a counter balance to that effort.
In the final analysis, is this not evolutionary force in display? How will the next generation of modern man look like if ugly marries ugly? If only ugly people copulate with ugly people, then modern man will soon have a Dracula variant that will torment our world to hell. Hence, the world being made perfect by the creator, the needs of the ugly and beautiful have been made to intersect not just by sociological preferences but animalistic instinct like sexual appetite which some of my now married handsome and successful friend will suggest is higher in the uglier women than the beautiful ones: who might be suffering from getting too little (making them novice) or too much (making it old) in their hey days. That argument is for another day.
Much as I try not to, all points to the fact that beautiful people (either the marginal or the head turning ones) are screwed- and hence have the lowest sense of self esteem. It is true because they will bear the scar of being hitched to an unequal (in the physical department) for the most part of their lives if they stay married and might feel under served by the institution of marriage. But there is hope. I know enough beautiful women with great marriages and handsome husbands, who have learnt how not to allow their beauty get in their head. In fact, you will need to convince many of them that they are gorgeously beautiful if there is anything of sort, and they are the ones that have found the perfect strike between marriage and beauty. Just check out any of Sabella’s girlfriends.
